Generally, yes there are values of posting the error threads - mainly it gives the whole community to know what problems are occurring and needs to be addressed. This thread shows that more work needs to be done to get this fixed. Even if the CAs, techs and actual scientists don't say anything, they are clearly aware of this particular error and are working on it. Over time CEP has improved, generating less errors. See www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=24262.

Sometimes the only way to know that there is a problem is posting on here. There may be no longer a need to post this particular type of error - we know that batches are still being produced that will cause this error and rest assured the techs and CEP scientists are working on this.

Well I'd say there is some merit in posting from one simple observation, if users didn't post saying they were getting more errors with particular projects, only the scientists would know. But some crunchers don't like to risk ending up with unusable results and would prefer to have their pc's deliver 100% useable results rather than waste crunch time producing a result that will be consigned to the garbage because the WU has errored.

If those crunchers know the error rate is higher with a particular project they can choose to stay away from it. That makes them happier, so they continue crunching here on WCG. If they discovered they had been crunching on a project with a higher error rate but no-one warned them about it they could become unhappy and leave for another project such as Rosetta, Seti, F@H etc.

So IMO posting about errors on a new project is a service to the whole community, not just the techs.

Why Not? The project is scheduled to run for 2 years and the new application using a new science engine to WCG, CHARMM, has it's learning curve with it as well, so I don't think this is a waste, rather an RC1 test to bring out the remaining issues.

You did see note of the stealth beta that went around I suppose, showing version 6.28, where production is on 6.25, so expect another iteration to appear imminently.

cheers

PS: Whilst I can have my opinions and confidence it will come right, I don't have the competence to make assessments like "I seriously doubt it" on the part of the science and the application.

I don't understand, David_L6 - if you are unhappy with the error level for this project, why are you still running it? Opting out of The Clean Energy Project is simple enough. World Community Grid have plenty of well-established projects running.


I don't think the techs will be looking into that one.

The techs can't look into it. You didn't name the task, and your original report gave no useful information.

I think you are misconstruing my intentions, here. These minor issues with The Clean Energy Project are obviously causing you considerable distress, ******repeated denunciations of the project. I simply want to relieve you of that stress. Your contribution here is completely voluntary, and nobody wants you to make yourself unhappy.

**********.

**Edited for intolerance**tkh